Obama: The rules for drone strikes are different here in the U.S. than they are overseas

posted at 6:01 pm on February 15, 2013 by Allahpundit

A nice catch by the Examiner’s Charlie Spiering, especially after Rand Paul threatened to block Brennan unless/until he provides a straight answer on whether drones can be used against U.S. citizens here in the United States. This doesn’t quite qualify as a straight answer but it’s the closest we’ve come yet:

“The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States,” Obama explained. “In part because our capacity to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

I mentioned that in my post about Paul and Brennan a few days ago. Because infeasibility of capture is one of the three criteria for ordering a drone strike, in theory the DOJ could declare that a terrorist located inside the U.S. is always, by definition, within reach of law enforcement and therefore the infeasibility requirement can never be satisfied here. Obama’s hinting at that point — but he never quite makes it. And in hindsight, it amazes me that the “white paper” on using drones against Americans that leaked to NBC never explicitly states it either. The White House knew it’d take heat for its judgments on Awlaki once that memo came out; one way they could have reassured the public and bought some goodwill would have been by including a blanket rule that armed drones can never, under any circumstances, be used in American airspace. They didn’t, even though Obama’s vaguely insinuating here that that’s essentially their policy. How come?

If you haven’t yet, read Kevin Williamson’s take on the perils of letting the president decide unilaterally whether an accused terrorist has “taken up arms” against America. No one disputes that Awlaki was a bad guy and master propagandist; the dispute is over whether that’s all he was or whether he was moving jihadi pieces around the chessboard on the operational side, as the White House insists. (For details on his alleged role in planning Abdulmutallab’s attempted “underwear bombing,” see pages 12-14 of this PDF.)

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

“The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States,” Obama explained. “In part because our capacity to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

Note that due process and other constitutional issues don’t figure into his reasoning.

“This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency,” said Obama. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

“The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States,” Obama explained. “In part because our capacity to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

Because everything Obama says he always means.

The only difference between using drones on his enemies over there and using them on his enemies over here will be the GPS co-ordinates.

The rules for drone strikes are different here in the U.S. than they are overseas

For today, anyway.

Step one – substitute ‘terrorists’ for ‘AQ’ in the Congressionally-approved AUMF. Not a big leap, right? These guys have all kinds of names. We shouldn’t be limited because of a name. A terrorist threat is a terrorist threat. No one argues.

who would actually make the decision on who, when and where to drone strike?

d1carter on February 15, 2013 at 6:06 PM

The Administration refuses to define the single individual who has the authority to pass sentences of death on Americans. They also refuse to define the requirements for getting one’s name on the list.

So we have an unnamed individual using an undefined set of rules to condemn American citizens to execution.

“This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency,” said Obama. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

The fact that Obama describes this ^^ as “struggle” (he’s “struggled with” it) pretty well describes what he’s about. It’s a real struggle for him to be restrained and not to run completely amok with the nation, the lives of Americans, to be civil, to be reasonable, to be lawful, to be a servant such as he campaigned he wanted to be and would be if elected…

…it’s a “struggle” for him to be contained, to keep all that wrong-desire and wrong-want in check…struggling to be sane, struggling to be reasonable, to be observant of the job’s restraints, “struggling”…

Obama, the monster. That’s what that admission of his reveals, he’s monstrous. It’s a real struggle for him to try to hide it.

Oh, it’s OK…Obama will take full responsibility…until his Secretary of State or Defense or somebody takes full responsibility…then a handful of lower level GS-types will get fired..but they really won’t get fired, ‘cuz ya can’t actually fire them…but, rest assured…it is all good.

I’ll probably catch hell for this, but I’m actually inclined to believe Obama here. I mean, really if they discover that there’s an Al Qaeda cell leader (regardless of citizenship status) hiding out in suburban Dallas, are they going to send the FBI to kick in his door and detain him for questioning or send in a drone and level half the neighborhood?

I’ll probably catch hell for this, but I’m actually inclined to believe Obama here. I mean, really if they discover that there’s an Al Qaeda cell leader (regardless of citizenship status) hiding out in suburban Dallas, are they going to send the FBI to kick in his door and detain him for questioning or send in a drone and level half the neighborhood?

LukeinNE on February 15, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Aside from an inherent drive to disbelieve anything Obama says, I’ll try to answer you using Obama’s record.

I’ll probably catch hell for this, but I’m actually inclined to believe Obama here. I mean, really if they discover that there’s an Al Qaeda cell leader (regardless of citizenship status) hiding out in suburban Dallas, are they going to send the FBI to kick in his door and detain him for questioning or send in a drone and level half the neighborhood?

LukeinNE on February 15, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Honestly, if Hasan can be identified by Obama as having engaged in “workplace violence,” thus dismissing his obvious associations and incentives in his violence committed upon U.S. citizens/military, I doubt very strongly that Obama is too worried about possible or potential “Al Qaeda cell leader…hiding out in suburban Dallas.”

Obama is far more concerned with and about American citizens who go to church, read the Bible, own guns, aren’t on public assistance, things like that.

Obama: ‘There has never been a drone used on an American citizen, on American soil’

“The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States,” Obama explained. “In part because our capacity to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

Congress has abdicated its responsibility.
The courts are increasingly politicized.
Obama and his clown circus are totally untrustworthy.

I am really not happy with the way this is trending.

I have no problem with the Awlaki strike and I think it was perfectly legitimate. He was Al-Qaeda and that is all it takes.

I suspect however that this administration may be trying to blur the actual reasoning behind the legitimacy of such a strike to give themselves greater latitude in the future. It should be justified purely on military grounds, and yet they keep trotting out reasons that are largely pointless unless he wants to establish that rationale as cause for action.

I’ll probably catch hell for this, but I’m actually inclined to believe Obama here. I mean, really if they discover that there’s an Al Qaeda cell leader (regardless of citizenship status) hiding out in suburban Dallas, are they going to send the FBI to kick in his door and detain him for questioning or send in a drone and level half the neighborhood?

Can’t wait for Holder and Napolitano to publish the new Nuremberg Laws Regulations defining terms….

In my lifetime, I never ever imagined that a sitting President of the United States would try to emulate every tinpot dictator I spent a lifetime operating against…using the same rationalizations…trashing the rule of law, Constitutional Law, and substituting Rex Lex to justify everything…

And, worse, having over half the population being perfectly fine with it…because…they got more important things to tend to…like Wednesday night being the worst ratings for American Idol ever…and their wonderful President is like sooo uber-cool and stuff…like awesome, even.

A true American tragedy.

And in another thread we are told that we have to be civil, and decent, and nice, and be friends with them…

People who are trying to kill you are not your friends.

People who support people who are trying to kill you are not your friends.

People who openly, willingly, brazenly trash the United States Constitution are no friends of the United States of America.

“The Administration refuses to define the single individual who has the authority to pass sentences of death on Americans. They also refuse to define the requirements for getting one’s name on the list.

So we have an unnamed individual using an undefined set of rules to condemn American citizens to execution.

Not sure about hauling nitro in a semi, though….had a town just south of here (family connection it its founding) just disappear one afternoon about 100 years ago…small wagon load of nitro tipped over when a train spooked the horse team. [Big oil center around here before Spindletop first gushed.]

Ii would hope that they have tightened up on transporting the stuff…by now.

I keep hearing about that magical pragmatism, but never see it. But I saw a unicorn in the yard just the other day…

Right now, I can’t see a direct drone strike with a military controller guiding the thing. Of course that could change at any second, especially if Obama becomes convinced he can get away with it. I can’t say how many would oppose such a move, but I like to think there are enough to preclude him doing something like that. For now, at least.

An Atlanta Police Department interagency DHS Spydog drone was on hand to assist when a radical group calling for the overthrow of the US government was within hours of committing a terrorist act. 7 individuals of the extremist group are known to have been killed. Banned assault style weapons, explosives, and munitions have been found. Also found on scene are significant quantities of cocaine and child pornography.

“The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States,” Obama explained.

Going to be different? Going to be? When did the rules change?

Further, when Obama insinuates publicly that impossibility of capture is the distinction to be drawn between inside and outside of the U.S., you can be absolutely certain that in private there is no distinction at all. Especially since the kill list is secret.

Of course, it is a “struggle” (or as Michelle O says, ” shtruggle”). Obysmal said as much when he expressed dissatisfaction about the slow pace of the Senate. He wants to move his agenda lickety split.

And if lil barry DID decide to use an armed drone against a “domestic terrorist” in the far reaches of the mountains of Idaho, or out in the middle of Montana or the Arizona desert reaches…who’s going to know about it? And who’s going to report it? The lsm obots?
Sure. Alex Jones and the rest of the conspiracy nutters will be all over the “rumors” of a drone strike…and who’ll pay attention?

Lil barry will use a drone to hit his domestic enemies as soon as he feels his position is secure enough to pull it off in secrecy and have any rumors of it put down to “conspiracy nutcases”.

“In part because our capacity to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

There are no foothills or mountains in the US that are not easily accessible for law enforcement.

LukeinNE. Dallas is accessible for law enforcement. There is lots of hostile terrain in the US that would make using an armed drone the method of choice. So just because he wouldn’t use a drone in a city doesn’t mean that drones in the US are off the table.

I’d argue that simply having military advisors on-station is a bridge too far. Hell, it wasn’t a big leap from advising to carpet-bombing in Vietnam.

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 7:08 PM

I see your point; advisers could be that hair-splitting point lawyers would bicker about. Erring on the side of caution and liberty, I hope to never see a straight-up military vehicle used in a law enforcement standoff again.

This is pathetic! The time has come for Conservatives to begin the ridicule of preeeezy. There is no price to pay. I saw it earlier today with Mary Katherine v Wrong Williams! Masterfully done! Also saw Steve Hayes up against that Charlie guy from the NYSlimes on Fox Report! Well done.

And if lil barry DID decide to use an armed drone against a “domestic terrorist” in the far reaches of the mountains of Idaho, or out in the middle of Montana or the Arizona desert reaches…who’s going to know about it? And who’s going to report it? The lsm obots?
Sure. Alex Jones and the rest of the conspiracy nutters will be all over the “rumors” of a drone strike…and who’ll pay attention?

Solaratov on February 15, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Exactly. Unless someone sees it, catches video/photo evidence, and manages to post it on enough places before the goon squads grab him and/or wipe everywhere he posted to (they will go so far as to nuke entire sites and blame it on hackers), who the h3ll will ever know?

Frankly I think everyone here should know how to upload stuff to the darknet. While the Internet is still operational, it’s a nasty little way to frustrate the feds.

…It would be difficult to imagine this administration, with its radical leftwing mindset and agenda, viewing such widespread displays of defiance as anything other than a direct threat to its power, and thus, a perfect motivation for declaring such citizens to be potentially “violent sovereign citizens.”

Citizen militias that are formed to counter the administration’s push to negate Second Amendment protections of unfettered gun rights would also potentially come under the umbrella of “violent extremist groups,” given that these citizens have openly stated that while they would never start a civil war by opening fire on federal agents, they would, in fact, return fire if fired upon first by government forces or law enforcement.

Although the United States itself was born directly from armed and “violent” resistance to government tyranny as represented by the British empire at the time, in today’s climate such ideas are viewed by elitist educators, historians, and politicians as dangerous extremism.

Thomas Jefferson, the nation’s third president, would more than likely be deemed a homegrown terrorist in modern America with his well-publicized view that the federal government needs to be purged every generation or so with an armed insurrection aimed at ridding the government of anyone who undermines individual liberty and the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Modern patriots who adhere to the philosophy of Jefferson represent a clear, direct threat to many within government who view the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as irritating roadblocks to their plans for complete government power over every sector of life.

America, thus, enters into a very dangerous phase of our history as increasingly it is becoming clear that our own government has set its sights against its own citizens.

As I recall, the FBI ran the assault with military help. But troops didn’t go in, far as I know. But you may well be right; I don’t like how that whole thing was done at all.

Liam on February 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM

But the ATF was used as the “troops” who stormed WACO. Just like Obama is using EO and federal agencies to enact, eradicate and ruin. It’s simply a substitution of terms, or, more specifically, a substitution of authorities.

by including a blanket rule that armed drones can never, under any circumstances, be used in American airspace.

Because they can’t. Historical precedent indicates that weapons equivalent in strength to armed drones have been used against citizens of the United States in rebellion against our nation. Obama cannot state a blanket prohibition without curtailing his own power to act in cases of rebellion or secession.

The Civil War is a great case in point.

Every nation, faced with an existential threat from some portion of its citizenry, will use every armament in its arsenal to protect its continuation.

Imagine, if you will, Waco with fighter jets, or, if big enough, with tactical nukes. As for me, I don’t view the guys who opposed the Government at Waco as any kind of heroes. I view the Branch Davidians as being similar to the Jonestown people — even worse than Dorner, if you will. The people who cite Waco as being some sort of legitimate exercise in rights — I view themn with the same disdain that I feel for the Dorner-lovers.

I am no fan of David Koresh, nor what’s his name out at Ruby Ridge, but I am a huge fan of the Rule of Law and our Constitution.

When the federal government can kill any citizen without due process, that creates a problem.

Killing children, innocents, in pursuit of somebody some politician declares a threat…without due process?

Some people are OK with this?

When the federal government can use the armed forces, any part of them, to facilitate, assist, advise or arm local civil authorities without due process and select committee review and approvals, that creates a problem.

The civil war, you cite…in essence, those confederated states, starting with South Carolina, were, in effect, independent nations, and operating as such…as was initiated by the succession of each, legal or not.

To equate individual citizens as rebel states needed to be forced back into compliance with whatever it is that the federal government demands…without due process or having the threat of being blown to bits by some remote control operator in a van sitting at the end of the runway at Kirkland hanging over them…

No.

Each time the Constitution is used as a doormat for some politician or president to use to waltz through the door yet another abrogation of our Rights as citizens, that is a problem.

Thomas Jefferson was right.

So was Franklin.

A little rebellion once in a while to purge government of those who would use it for their own benefit over that of the citizenry…we are long overdue.

And allowing “government” to use every means at its disposal to protect the continuation of a tyranny?

That is why we have the Second Amendment enshrined in our Bill of Rights…to prevent such.

And when “Al-Qaeda” is substituted with “Tea Party” after someone somewhere does something stupid we’ll have you to thank.

alchemist19 on February 15, 2013 at 11:41 PM

At that point do you really think that any precedent would matter? If they are intent on starting an internal war then not a God damn thing we say or do is going to change that and no court ruling against the use of drones will be adhered to.

Al-Qaeda deserves to be hunted down until the last of those SOBs have surrendered up, or died. I don’t identify with their ‘plight’, or have the slightest sympathy with them.

Assessing “capacity to apprehend” is subjective, and subjectivity is Obama’s sweet-spot.

He and his supporters are lawless. They care no more for US citizens or their quaint Constitution than the laws of the countries they are adventuring in. Armed hostilities in foreign countries are acts of war and the President does not have the independent authority to do that.